JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the order dated 20th April, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Bharatpur, allowed Mahesh Chand to be impleaded as party defendant no.6 in the suit no. 30/11 (Sohan Singh v. Harish Chand & Ors.). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner-plaintiff has been in possession of the property in dispute. He has sought no relief against the respondent no.1 Mahesh Chand, who has been allowed to be impleaded as party defendant no.6 in suit. Thus, from no stretch of imagination respondent no.1 can be said to be a necessary or proper party. Learned trial court has, sans assigning any reason has ordered him to be impleaded as party defendant, hence, the impugned order being bad in the eyes of law, deserves to be set aside. 4. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the impugned order, it is noticed that the respondent no.1 Mahesh Chand filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC imploring him to be impleaded as party defendant no.6 on the ground that the will of the property was in his favour, albeit, the petitioner-plaintiff was in possession of the property, but all the issues directly and substantially, entailed in the suit, are to be decided only by way of evidence being led by both the parties. Since the will was in favour of the respondent no.1, he was a necessary party and his appearance in the suit was necessary for the just decision of the suit. Thus, the learned trial court, having considered all the facts and discussed the same adlongum, found the respondent no.1 Mahesh Chand to be a necessary party and allowed the application. 5. It is relevant to record that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked only when the impugned order is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. 6. 5. It is relevant to record that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked only when the impugned order is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. 6. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the respondent no.1 was found to be a necessary party by the learned trial court and the court has rightly decided the application in his favour. The writ petition is found to be devoid of any substance, hence, it deserves to be dismissed in limine. 7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition being bereft of any merits stands dismissed at the threshold. 8. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands disposed of, accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******